Hmm, a rising tide raises all boats

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
You do realize that you can have a negative exponential?

My statement clearly implied positive exponential growth.

Source

A quick graph of gdp data from the source

Matters not, what's far more important is the current context. It ain't 1950, 1970, or even 1990s. Policies of this government are not setting the stage for a brilliant future that resembles our past. Unless of course you look at the long flat portions . . .

 

[LunarRay]

What fails is the use (in economic models) of algorithms based on historical relationships that are no longer applicable and then use that to produce what ever it is the Economist seeks to develop.

The best we can do is guess what the various dynamics interwoven into todays reality will or ought to produce... We are in a changing environment where the Economist tends to rely on some static conditions. Nothing is Ceteras Paribus in reality...

So.... to look at Laffer's efforts and assumptions regarding 'full employment' is not really a very good thing to do.. We must evaluate bodies out of work who could work in relation to the available jobs and the training or experience these folks have..

Detroit is a great example. Folks choose not to relocate to Kentucky or Toyota's latest assembly plant and while it is true jobs are had in Kentucky.. the ones in Detroit may work at McDonald's.

We need to establish a manufacturing policy for this nation... Congress has adopted the NAFTA mind set that expects zero population growth in all other world markets which they assume will enable them to 'catch up' to US norms real quick like.. and they won't.. look at Mexico.. Isolate over time.. and end 'outsourcing'... IMO our only hope of dealing with the US financial needs in 20 or 30 years... that and Energy reliance... stop using so much.. use OUR science to develop what we need to eliminate much of the trade gap..

 

[jrenz]

If anybody is interested, the revised numbers for Q3 are out, showing a much better than expected upside revision.

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketstory/10324799.html

A busy week for data continued with the Commerce Department saying the economy grew at a 2.2% annual pace last quarter. The report was the second of three that will be issued on the third quarter, and it exceeded the advance reading of 1.6%. Economists had expected an upward revision to 1.8%.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: jrenz
If anybody is interested, the revised numbers for Q3 are out, showing a much better than expected upside revision.

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketstory/10324799.html

A busy week for data continued with the Commerce Department saying the economy grew at a 2.2% annual pace last quarter. The report was the second of three that will be issued on the third quarter, and it exceeded the advance reading of 1.6%. Economists had expected an upward revision to 1.8%.

Still low, but much better than 1.6%.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
In case you didnt notice, the EU has been trying to break the 2% barrier for years while we have been growing at between 3-4% the last 3 years.

With higher inflation and higher fed rates, a slow down in the economy is expected.

I am sure we can scrounge up that link explaining why the trade gap isnt as bad a thing as people make it out to be.

I always thought it interesting the europe has generally been keeping up with productivity increases.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Genx87
In case you didnt notice, the EU has been trying to break the 2% barrier for years while we have been growing at between 3-4% the last 3 years.

With higher inflation and higher fed rates, a slow down in the economy is expected.

I am sure we can scrounge up that link explaining why the trade gap isn't as bad a thing as people make it out to be.

Well, we in the EU don't have a population growth. That's the main reason for the 2%.

I really dont buy that is the entire reason for slow growth. I think the oppressive tax situations and govt intermingling within the markets and business have hurt equally as bad, if not more.

With such a low population growth(negative?), wouldnt you run out of workers to work? Instead you have high unemployment in many countries.

gdp is a function of labor and capital, when you labor force increases 1% per year your economy will also generally grow a bit less than 1% per year. It been a while, but I recall output = zf(L^.64*K^.36), where output is total factor productivity(z)*function of labor and capital, which has generally been calculated to be L^.64*K^.36


Unemployment in europe is an issue, and i've never really looked at a cause, or even how its calculated.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz
The decrease in growth can be attributed almost exclusively to the slowdown in the housing market. European growth is significantly slower than our growth, either way.

look at productivity number, which actually mean something without having to go into a deap analysis of accounting methods. And speaking of accounting methods, european practices tend to understate profits and revenues, and may have an impact on their paper growth rates.

 

[slash196]

A rising tide raises all boats, unless the boats have holes in them, in which case the crew drowns. The analogy is more accurate than perhaps was intended.

 

[Craig234]

What is the economic growth of the US when you remove all the growth attributable to borrowed money (our several-hundred billion dollar deficit)?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What is the economic growth of the US when you remove all the growth attributable to borrowed money (our several-hundred billion dollar deficit)?

Bankrupt

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jrenz
If anybody is interested, the revised numbers for Q3 are out, showing a much better than expected upside revision.

http://www.thestreet.com/markets/marketstory/10324799.html

A busy week for data continued with the Commerce Department saying the economy grew at a 2.2% annual pace last quarter. The report was the second of three that will be issued on the third quarter, and it exceeded the advance reading of 1.6%. Economists had expected an upward revision to 1.8%.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/u...D49AA%2D814C%2D4004D878071E%7D&siteId=

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- The U.S. economy grew at a 2.2% annual pace in the third quarter, a bit faster than the 1.6% initially estimated, but down from the 2.6% in the previous quarter, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday in its first revision to the gross domestic product report.

Revisions came largely from greater building of inventories and lower imports than originally assumed. Business investment also grew more than first estimated, while consumer spending was slightly slower. Read the full government report.

...

However, others said the report did not provide the all-clear signal. "The upward revision does not signify greater strength in the economy," wrote Roger Kubarych, an economist for UniCredit Markets.

Because much of the upward revision was due to inventory growth, the implications for the fourth quarter's growth could be negative, wrote Joshua Shapiro, chief economist for MFR. "Growth in the fourth quarter looks to have gotten off to a soggy start."

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What is the economic growth of the US when you remove all the growth attributable to borrowed money (our several-hundred billion dollar deficit)?

If you do that for us, you have to do it for every country, since every country in the world carries debt, including China.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz
The decrease in growth can be attributed almost exclusively to the slowdown in the housing market. European growth is significantly slower than our growth, either way.

look at productivity number, which actually mean something without having to go into a deap analysis of accounting methods. And speaking of accounting methods, european practices tend to understate profits and revenues, and may have an impact on their paper growth rates.

Europe's economy, with the exception of Great Britain and maybe a few others, is absolutely in the dumps. France, Germany, Italy all have a terrible economy with low growth and high unemployment.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz
The decrease in growth can be attributed almost exclusively to the slowdown in the housing market. European growth is significantly slower than our growth, either way.

look at productivity number, which actually mean something without having to go into a deap analysis of accounting methods. And speaking of accounting methods, european practices tend to understate profits and revenues, and may have an impact on their paper growth rates.

Europe's economy, with the exception of Great Britain and maybe a few others, is absolutely in the dumps. France, Germany, Italy all have a terrible economy with low growth and high unemployment.

Let's see, Germany's unemployment was 12.6% in March 2005

US unemployment (using the real numbers) in July 2004 was about 12.5%


Germany's year-on-year GDP growth: 2.8%

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz
The decrease in growth can be attributed almost exclusively to the slowdown in the housing market. European growth is significantly slower than our growth, either way.

look at productivity number, which actually mean something without having to go into a deap analysis of accounting methods. And speaking of accounting methods, european practices tend to understate profits and revenues, and may have an impact on their paper growth rates.

Europe's economy, with the exception of Great Britain and maybe a few others, is absolutely in the dumps. France, Germany, Italy all have a terrible economy with low growth and high unemployment.

Let's see, Germany's unemployment was 12.6% in March 2005

US unemployment (using the real numbers) in July 2004 was about 12.5%


Germany's year-on-year GDP growth: 2.8%

I'm guessing you're using discouraged workers in that stat for the US. I don't think Germany counts discouraged workers in its unemployment stats either so your figure for Germany isn't on par and is misleading.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: slash196
A rising tide raises all boats, unless the boats have holes in them, in which case the crew drowns. The analogy is more accurate than perhaps was intended.

lol...or if one person has too much of the pie it may as well tip over the boat.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz
The decrease in growth can be attributed almost exclusively to the slowdown in the housing market. European growth is significantly slower than our growth, either way.

look at productivity number, which actually mean something without having to go into a deap analysis of accounting methods. And speaking of accounting methods, european practices tend to understate profits and revenues, and may have an impact on their paper growth rates.

Europe's economy, with the exception of Great Britain and maybe a few others, is absolutely in the dumps. France, Germany, Italy all have a terrible economy with low growth and high unemployment.

Let's see, Germany's unemployment was 12.6% in March 2005

US unemployment (using the real numbers) in July 2004 was about 12.5%


Germany's year-on-year GDP growth: 2.8%

I'm guessing you're using discouraged workers in that stat for the US. I don't think Germany counts discouraged workers in its unemployment stats either so your figure for Germany isn't on par and is misleading.

Not sure whether they do or not. If you have a link, feel free to post it.

But, Germany's unemployment continues to drop.

Down to 9.6%
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/30/content_5414747.htm

 

[blackllotus]

Harsh realities about the future of our economy

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: ntdz
The decrease in growth can be attributed almost exclusively to the slowdown in the housing market. European growth is significantly slower than our growth, either way.

look at productivity number, which actually mean something without having to go into a deap analysis of accounting methods. And speaking of accounting methods, european practices tend to understate profits and revenues, and may have an impact on their paper growth rates.

Europe's economy, with the exception of Great Britain and maybe a few others, is absolutely in the dumps. France, Germany, Italy all have a terrible economy with low growth and high unemployment.

Let's see, Germany's unemployment was 12.6% in March 2005

US unemployment (using the real numbers) in July 2004 was about 12.5%


Germany's year-on-year GDP growth: 2.8%

I'm guessing you're using discouraged workers in that stat for the US. I don't think Germany counts discouraged workers in its unemployment stats either so your figure for Germany isn't on par and is misleading.

Not sure whether they do or not. If you have a link, feel free to post it.

But, Germany's unemployment continues to drop.

Down to 9.6%
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/30/content_5414747.htm

The EU counts unemployment very similar to what we do in the states so the comparison is bunk. This revelation of higher unemployment figures only came about in recent years as a BS argument to toss on Bush. The same people who parade around this supposed 12.5% in the US wont claim the same litmus test for Clinton.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur
But, Germany's unemployment continues to drop.

Down to 9.6%
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/30/content_5414747.htm

The EU counts unemployment very similar to what we do in the states so the comparison is bunk. This revelation of higher unemployment figures only came about in recent years as a BS argument to toss on Bush. The same people who parade around this supposed 12.5% in the US wont claim the same litmus test for Clinton.

Says who? You? Clinton's administration is the one that did away with counting discouraged workers.